I don't know if I agree with that. Because if it is even mentioned in passing, as not even the main point of a reply, it is devoured by Twin-haters left and right. Which is exactly how this entire discussion for the last two pages began. Go ahead and reread the first post in that chain and tell me that my intention was to discuss Twin. And not say, categorize different types of banned cards based on goals and intentions with regards to Tron. Which itself was a continuation on a broader interpretive discussion on WOTC ban decisions and criteria as a whole. Could I have just not said the small part? Sure. But its also why I put it tiny at the end, along with classification of Looting, because some smartaleck usually comes in and ak-chew-a-lee's about how WOTC didn't intend to destroy it. I mean FFS, some of y'all JUMP at a moment's notice when ever someone even dares to imply that something might not be perfect about the banning of the most controversial card in all of Magic. Why don't YOU* get over it? Ignore the comments, and discuss something else, instead of constantly and aggressively engaging?FoodChainGoblins wrote: ↑8 months agoJust because a card is banned doesn't mean it is the correct decision (as originally defined by WotC). See Bridge from Below.pierreb wrote: ↑8 months agoTwo key differences:
- The card *is* banned, so being pro-twin means your view is contrary to the views of those in control of the ban list.
- Anti-twin don't bring up the subject over and over. Only the pro-twin do. Which is like 1/3 of all posts (or so it seems).
I will give it to you there. The Pro-Twin side does bring it up.
* "You" referring broadly to those who do this frequently, not you, user @FoodChainGoblins